Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') was
published on April 14,1977 acquiring an extent of 3 acres 34 gunthas, 1 acre 2 gunthas
for extension of agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Gadag in Dharwad
district of Karnataka state. The land Acquisition Officer (lad) by his award
dated January 23 ,1982 determined the compensation at the
rate of Re.0.76 per sq,ft. On reference, the Civil Judge Gadag in his award
dated November 29, 1982 enhanced the compensation to
Rs.8.50 per sq. ft. On appeal under Section 54; in the impugned judgment dated October 7,1992 and November 4.1992 in MFA
No.837/87 and MFA No.1962/87 respectively, the High Court of Karnataka reduced
the compensation to Rs.7/- per sq. ft. Thus these appeal by special leave.

The
reference Court and High Court relied on three sale instances of an extent of
38.4 sq. ft. and 87.35 sq. ft. which worked out at the rate of Rs,8/- and
Rs.19.98 per sq.ft.; another sale deed of 78 sq. ft. was worked out at the rate
of Rs.31.25 per sq. ft. The question is whether the principal adopted by the
courts below is correct in law? It is now settled legal position by catena of
decisions of this court that the civil Court has to sit in the arm chair of a
willing prudent purchaser and put question to itself and answer whether such a
willing prudent purchaser would offer to purchase in the open market at the
rate Court proposes to determine as compensation. When a total extent of 7
acres and odd is sought to be acquired no prudent purchaser in open market
would offer to purchase the open land on sq. ft. basis that too on the basis of
few small sale transactions and small extents would always fetch higher market
value and the same will never command such price in rsepct of large extent.
This Court had always rejected such instances as being not comparable sales.
Therefore the Civil Judge adopted feats of imagination and of imagination and
determined compensation on the basis thereof. Unfortunately the High Court also
fell into the same grave error in determination the compensation on the same
basis but deducted 1/3rd toward development charges, the principle adopted by
the court below is abviously erroneous and, therefore, it cannot be substained
on that basis. However where we asked the learned counsel for the parties to produced
the evidence, the appellant has produced certain documents indicating therein
that for the same purpose they appeared to have negotiated and purchased the
properties from other at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per acre and registered sale
deed came to be executed. They are produced for the first time. Shri Ranjit
Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the documents were
not placed either in the reference Court or in the High Court.

He
also says that location of the lands are different. Under these circumstances,
we cannot; decide for the first time the value of the land on the basis thereof
without giving an opportunity to either of the parties for adducing evidence
and without consideration thereof by the reference Court.

Accordingly,
the awards and decrees of the reference Court and that of the High Court stand
set aside. The cases are remitted to the civil Court for decision afresh after
giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh and then decide
the market value according to law. Pending these appeals since the respondents
have withdrawn the amount as per the interim direction passed by this Court,
the same may not be disturbed and the amount withdrawn will be adjusted when
the award was passed by the reference Court.

The
appeals are accordingly disposed of. The judgment of High Court to the extent
of awarding additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act stands set aside
since the LAO had made his award before the Amendment Act came into Force. no
costs.